Ok so I have been an NRA member in the past. At one time I though about becoming a Life time member. Not anymore, they are IMHO out of control. They seem to be more of a moderate group, who like D.C. has gotten to big and makes deals that the members would not support.

Not to mention all the anti gun and freedom grabbing policy the NRA has supported. How could we support the NRA? Then you have a board member by the name of Joaquin Jackson. Mr. Jackson is a retired Texas Ranger. He is supposedly a defender of the 2nd amendment. However does he support you having am AR with a 30 round magazine? Watch this video and find out, for yourself.

<O></O>Recently, some misunderstandings have arisen about a news interview in which I participated a few years ago. After recently watching a tape of that interview, I understand the sincere concerns of many people, including dear friends of mine. And I am pleased and eager to clear up any confusion about my long held belief in the sanctity of the Second Amendment.<O></O><O></O>In the interview, when asked about my views of &#8220;assault weapons,&#8221; I was talking about true assault weapons &#8211; fully automatic firearms. I was not speaking, in any way, about semiautomatic rifles. While the media may not understand this critical distinction, I take it very seriously. But, as a result, I understand how some people may mistakenly take my comments to mean that I support a ban on civilian ownership of semiautomatic firearms. Nothing could be further from the truth. And, unfortunately, the interview was cut short before I could fully explain my thoughts and beliefs.<O></O><O></O>In fact, I am a proud owner of such rifles, as are millions of law-abiding Americans. And many Americans also enjoy owning fully automatic firearms, after being cleared by a background check and meeting the rigorous regulations to own such firearms. And these millions of lawful gun owners have every right &#8211; and a Second Amendment right &#8211; to own them.<O></O><O></O>As a hunter, I take great pride in my marksmanship. Every hunter should practice to be skilled to take prey with a single shot, if possible. That represents ethical, humane, skilled hunting. In the interview several years ago, I spoke about this aspect of hunting and my belief that no hunter should take the field and rely upon high capacity magazines to take their prey.<O></O><O></O>But that comment should never be mistaken as support for the outright banning of any ammunition magazines. In fact, such bans have been pursued over the years by state legislatures and the United States Congress and these magazine bans have always proven to be abject failures.<O></O><O></O>Let me be very clear. As a retired Texas Ranger, during 36 years of law enforcement service, I was sworn to uphold the United States Constitution. As a longtime hunter and shooter, an NRA Board Member, and as an American &#8211; I believe the Second Amendment is a sacred right of all law-abiding Americans and, as I stated in the interview in question, I believe it is the Second Amendment that ensures all of our other rights handed down by our Founding Fathers.<O></O><O></O>I have actively opposed gun bans and ammunition and magazine bans in the past, and I will continue to actively oppose such anti-gun schemes in the future.<O></O><O></O>I appreciate my friends who have brought this misunderstanding to light, for it has provided me an opportunity to alleviate any doubts about my strong support for the NRA and our Second Amendment freedom.<O></O>
<O></O>
<O></O>

####​

Why would a board member and supporter of the NRA and the second amendment, allow him self to be put into a situation that most gun owners know would be a bad light?

Why even talk about it? Why should LEO's be allowed burst and not civilains? Should we not be able to have the same types of weapons of those that could possibly turn against us?

Isn't the Government suppose to fear the people? Why do we fear the Government? Is it because we know Police and military have weapons far more suitable for war?

Do I have a problem with them having them? Nope especially the Armed Forces. I don't fear the Men and woman in the Armed Forces. I fear the New Orleans Police and NATO Troops.

We already have to pay a tax to own these weapons as well as having the government approval to buy them. Isn't that enough?

Shouldn't the NRA and it's board members be making it easier for us to buy class II and Class III weapons?

Why has the NRA not distanced there selves from this man? It is possible the NRA truly feels this way?

Do they think deep down that the 2nd Amendment is only for hunting and not for true self defense? Are AR 15's and SKS rifles more of a danger to society, in the hands of a law abiding citizen than a 5 shot revolver?

If you want to read the red highlight it makes it very readable FYI. next time try green. His response is a law, they are outlawed now, so talking about banning, he's talking about semis. and the 5rd mags for "assault weapons" so his literature response is BS he's a proponent of 5rd cap laws. period.

If he was talking about full auto how wouuld that be a touchy subject at the NRA? They know they won't get the full auto ban overturned, and they know that the grandfathered weapons won't get taken.... so he's lying period.

This is a board member who stepped down because of the NRA supporting canidates who are not friends of our cause!

SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY?
NO MORE A GRADES FOR GUN GRABBERS By Russ Howard, NRA Board Member (1995-97; resigned) ​

In the past 5 years I've become increasingly concerned over NRA's penchant for giving undeserved grades to politicians who trample on the 2nd Amendment. My first experiences with this were in California in 1992: CASE 1. JOAN MILKE FLORES VS JANE HARMAN. 36TH CONGRESSIONAL Flores is an anti-gun Republican who, as an LA City Councilwoman, voted for the Los Angeles Assault Rifle Ban. Harman is an anti-gun Democrat. When I heard that Flores was getting an "A" rating, I called NRA staffer Terry O'Grady (now Terry Smith) to express my concern. O'Grady said shed met with Flores and that Flores "gave us assurances" that "she's on our side". O'Grady said the only problem was that nobody had educated her. I told O'Grady that giving Flores an "A" was a breech of trust with the membership, a deliberate misrepresentation to manipulate NRA members, that Flores had no right to an "A" until she earned it. That got me a hefty ration of beltway contempt. O'Grady snapped "then why don't you just vote for Jane Harman." Shocked, I said that wasn't the issue: If we wanted members to vote against Harman, we could give Harman an F, but give Flores a "D" and an explicit "lesser-of-two-evils" endorsement. O'Grady said members are too unsophisticated to vote for a lesser-of-two-evils candidate. In other words, ILA was deliberately lying to and manipulating NRA members. She said shed taken it up with the PAC board, they agreed with her, and I could speak with them about it. I didn't. I'd heard enough. Our reward? After getting the "A" rating, Flores sneaked out of a city council vote where we lost a measure forcing all new gun stores to go through a conditional use permit system, making it possible to effectively ban new gun stores. Soon after that, Flores was back in the press loudly announcing that she still supports the assault weapon ban. CASE 2: CHRISTINE REED VS TERRY FREIDMAN (State Assembly) Reed was an anti-gun C-rated Republican HCI member who had been mayor of Santa Monica (a city notorious for its control by the Tom Hayden / Jane Fonda crowd). Freidman was an F-rated incumbent Democrat who authored many anti-gun bills too radical to be enacted. In that sense, he was less dangerous than Reed, whose predictable moderate gun bills were more likely to go somewhere. Californians Against Corruption almost made the mistake of attacking Friedman in his assembly race against Reed with a 50,000-piece re-mail through the activist network. It wouldve used up all of our money and manpower for the season. Volunteers wouldve spent up to $15,000 in stamps alone. Wed been led to believe by ILA that Reed was "not that great on guns", but wasn't that bad either. After all, she had a "C" rating. In my book, "C" is a passing grade. I was told that Reed was just ignorant on our issue and could be "brought over". Then we heard Reed was a member of Handgun Control Inc. I called around to confirm this and got a copy of her questionnaire. From her answers, she was a clear "F". In addition, shed openly admitted her HCI membership! So we switched to the McClintock/Beilenson congressional race, barely in time to get out a 62,000-piece mailer out to swing-voter households. When HCI heard Reed had "courted" NRA, they threatened to expose her. Reed panicked, told them she was lying to us, and groveled to get back in bed with them. I made a stink about the Reed case and later brought it to Tanya Metaksa's attention. Her response was to prohibit access to candidate questionnaires by NRA members so itd be harder for members to figure out what's being done to them. CASE 3. TRICIA HUNTER: Hunter was state senator whose bid to retain office was based on high-profile attacks on "killer assault rifles". She was rated "A-". When NRA gives a misleading rating, it... 1.Confuses the membership...Does Flores deserve the same grade as those legislators who never betray us and go out of their way to carry our water? 2.Demoralizes members...Would Flores have gotten an "A" had she banned "sporting" guns instead of "assault rifles"? 3.Demoralizes pro-gun legislators...Imagine youre a legislator who often takes abuse for standing firm with the NRA, and the sellout next door gets an "A". 4.Sends signals to politicians...Tells them were fools and its safe to sell us out. 5.Corrodes member trust...Can we trust information from people who tell us that HCI members are "C"s and people who support gun bans are "A"s? 6.Corrupts the integrity and informational utility of the rating process. 7.Wastes resources (e.g., our near-mailing against Friedman).

He seems to have little respect for "civilians" regarding their rights in both his interview and his statement afterwards. His statement did nothing to reverse what he said in his interview in my opinion.

Heston was in big time on the gun control act in 1968. Charlton Heston and the Gun Control Act of 1968
The NRA is a huge buraeucracy, which does both good and bad for gun owners. GOA, JPFO both are more single minded, but less effective with slimy politicians.

Come on guys, who needs a fully automatic rifle? None of my friends have one nor need full automatics. What this guy said is fully within the NRA guidelines. Nobody in their right mind would go hunting with a full automatic, or use one for self defense. And as for even owning one, what the hell would you do with it, nothing leagally except shoot it once a year out in your back yard shooting over $100 in ammo. If you want to own one then jump through the hoops and prove you have need for one if you can. If you can't hunt with a bolt action or a semi automatic then you are not a hunter. I thought when the NRA backed owning AK's and AR's they were going over the top. Now some of you want fully automatics? What are you planning to do, start a war? Get real, if you need one for self defense then you are running with the wrong crowd.

Come on guys, who needs a fully automatic rifle? None of my friends have one nor need full automatics. What this guy said is fully within the NRA guidelines. Nobody in their right mind would go hunting with a full automatic, or use one for self defense. And as for even owning one, what the hell would you do with it, nothing leagally except shoot it once a year out in your back yard shooting over $100 in ammo. If you want to own one then jump through the hoops and prove you have need for one if you can. If you can't hunt with a bolt action or a semi automatic then you are not a hunter. I thought when the NRA backed owning AK's and AR's they were going over the top. Now some of you want fully automatics? What are you planning to do, start a war? Get real, if you need one for self defense then you are running with the wrong crowd.

Click to expand...

First off, there is nothing illegal about using a full auto for self defense.

Second, who cares about "why would you need one?" Thats not the point. The point is, the second amendment says I have the RIGHT not the privallege to own and bear arms. Therefore I should decide what I wish to own. Not the government.

Based on this way of thinking, you could say that everyone only "needs" one handgun for SD and one rifle for hunting

Come on guys, who needs a fully automatic rifle? None of my friends have one nor need full automatics. What this guy said is fully within the NRA guidelines. Nobody in their right mind would go hunting with a full automatic, or use one for self defense. And as for even owning one, what the hell would you do with it, nothing leagally except shoot it once a year out in your back yard shooting over $100 in ammo. If you want to own one then jump through the hoops and prove you have need for one if you can. If you can't hunt with a bolt action or a semi automatic then you are not a hunter. I thought when the NRA backed owning AK's and AR's they were going over the top. Now some of you want fully automatics? What are you planning to do, start a war? Get real, if you need one for self defense then you are running with the wrong crowd.

Click to expand...

Are you for real? It's not about automatic wepons or AR or, etc. It's about freedom. It's about the rights of being an American. It's about our god given rights and the rights the rights our forefathers bestowed upon us.

Alert! I knew eventually the anti-gunners would come on forums like these and tout their garbage.

Come on guys, who needs a fully automatic rifle? None of my friends have one nor need full automatics. What this guy said is fully within the NRA guidelines. Nobody in their right mind would go hunting with a full automatic, or use one for self defense. And as for even owning one, what the hell would you do with it, nothing leagally except shoot it once a year out in your back yard shooting over $100 in ammo. If you want to own one then jump through the hoops and prove you have need for one if you can. If you can't hunt with a bolt action or a semi automatic then you are not a hunter. I thought when the NRA backed owning AK's and AR's they were going over the top. Now some of you want fully automatics? What are you planning to do, start a war? Get real, if you need one for self defense then you are running with the wrong crowd.

Click to expand...

it is not about jumping through hoops man, it is about price. since the price on a pre-ban full auto is not something that a regular person, who is protected by the 2nd amendment, can't afford them then it becomes a privilege. also as stated earlier, when the government fears the people there is liberty. why would they fear a bunch of people with lesser weapons and fewer bullets in the mag. you keep with your line of reasoning then i guess that all sports cars should be outlawed too unless you are rich enough and powerful enough to take the tests and buy one? because who would need a car that can go 180 mph? you obviously are going to run from the cops in commision of a crime right? what a joke. vince
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

Useful Searches

About XDTalk.com

XDtalk.com is the Internet's largest XD & XD(m) community. In addition to covering the various Springfield Armory pistols we also have large sections dedicated to other various firearms such as the: M1911, M1A, M14, AK-47 (and other AK rifles), AR's and many more. Our goal is to be a friendly community that welcomes enthusiasts of all makes and models!